Rural broadband update: Fairpoint weirdness and potential governors

Over the past few months I’ve been blogging about our Vermont region’s struggles to get decent highspeed. Let me update you on where things stand.

Short version: there has been some potential, more frustration, and a single glimmer of hope. It is now political.

Part 1: Fairpoint follies

A few weeks ago Fairpoint, our only available ISP and major telco in the region, sent around a memo claiming to improve speeds in our county, singling out Ripton by name. Which was nice.

However, exactly nothing has happened since.

When I called their business office, the rep said they had no idea what I was talking about. I haven’t heard anything since, not by official communications, nor in response to my queries.

Meanwhile, I’ve been researching technologies which could speed up existing broadband services. Some companies claim they can bring fiber speeds to copper connections.

I’ve pinged Fairpoint about this. Once again, nothing.

Indeed, the person at their Customer Excellence Center whom I’ve been talking with for a couple of months has stopped answering her phone. Every call of mine goes straight to voicemail, and she hasn’t called back.

So what’s going on with Fairpoint? Did they announce a service improvement too early? Are they working on something even now, but their communication setup isn’t connected to it? Is this a bait and switch, or just puffing smoke?

Phil Scott (GOP, currently service lieutenant governor) said it was impossible to bring broadband to everyone. He was very open about this point, arguing that the two previous governors had promised universal broadband, but were unable to deliver it. He didn’t want to overpromise.

In particular he wanted to maintain and set the conditions for improving broadband to… those who already have it, namely Vermont cities and areas with high population densities. This is a clear signal that he will not act to boost broadband in the countryside.

Scott also expressed hopes for new technologies, namely AT&T’s concept of carrying broadband over electrical lines (one explainer). He did not offer a timeline for this.

Overall, Scott’s position is very conservative, especially in the Burkean sense. He wants smaller roles for state government, and hopes the private sector will solve problems. In our case, this is a recipe for failure, since market forces have stalled out their connectivity rollout.

Sue Minter (Democrat, various state positions, notably leader of post-Irene recovery) said she wants universal broadband for all the right reasons: economic, educational, cultural benefits. She shared very precise and accurate policy and technological details.

Around the time of this debate her website sprouted a pro-broadband policy page. It’s possible that our community’s activism on broadband has had some impact on her campaign. Personally, she now has my vote.

But he began by opposing broadband. It’s a bad idea to be so connected, he explained. He hates the idea. And the audience clap of support is telling and depressing. Part of Vermont resists rural broadband. That’s not often discussed, but is one force holding us back.

Rural development and digital divide…. Obviously, resources and numbers — population density — are part of it, but there is also resistance, perhaps less to tech than the culture shift it represents. There is also a power issue in expanding the tools of information sharing. Authorities and institutions that could/should be supporting and encouraging may see the expansion as losing control over information and a threat to their authority.

Thanks for librarian.net: I also collect libraries great and small, page serious and whimsical.